So its that time of the year again! The leaves are changing colors, school is back in session, and the weather is turning cool. But the most exciting part of fall are the debates! With the Gubanatorial election happening on November 2nd, candidates are hustling votes, slandering each other, proving points, kickin ass and takin names!
This election season has been a doozie! Citizens nationwide feel as though Barrack Hussein Obama has been nothing more then a lame duck president who has cost us a fortune. As our country continues to spend, spend, spend, our deficit gets larger. With the downturn of the economy and jobs at an all time low, people are mad and they are not going to take it anymore!
So the pendulum is swinging full force back in the republican direction. The republicans are favored 48% over the democrats at 42%.
Currently in Massachusetts we have running for governor...
Deval Patrick: Democratic candidate; Our current governor running for re-election. Favors a sliding scale, income tax based on financial bracket. He is against lowering the Massachusetts sales tax from 6% to 3.5% Recently rejected the Massachusetts casino bill.
Charlie Baker: Republican candidate; Former cabinet member under Ronald Regan and Richard Nixon. Former CEO of Harvard Pilgrim health insurance. Favors our current income tax system, and lowering the Massachusetts sales tax from 6% to 3%
Tim Cahill: Independent Candidate; Current Massachusetts treasurer, former member of the Quincy city counsel and former Norfolk County Treasurer. Favors giving the voters what they want, and making discussions based on what the ballots say. Favors lowering the Massachusetts sales tax from 6% to 3.5% should the voters vote in favor of it. Is in favor of the Massachusetts Casino bill, and willing to sign any legislation that would create jobs for Massachusetts citizens.
All three candidates have unanimously agreed to cap state employee pensions, and increase the legal retirement age.
Personally, I'm voting for Tim Cahill. He is extremely behind in the poles, and was recently abandoned by his running mate Paul Loscocco. Losocco is now backing republican candidate Charlie Baker. I'm backing Cahill, because he has the most experience, has shown in the past that he will do what the voters vote for, and pass legislation. The other two candidates seem extremely shifty. Cahill has been breaking his ass to obtain votes, refuses to quit, and is swaying voters one vote at a time. I feel as though he won't let us down.
So forum posters, who are you voting for? Tell me about your candidate!
Regretfully, I am voting for Bill White, the democratic nominee for governor of Texas. I didn't feel like throwing away another vote for the Green party. ;_;
Also voting for the Libertarian candidate for the House.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We sang: "I don't know where we go from here"
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
I actually am not registered to vote yet, but I am considering doing so. I'll most likely vote republican, since 99% of the democrats now in days are socialists. Then again, so a lot of republicans, so I'll have to look at the candidates more closely. I would vote libertarian, but They never win. No green party for me, as global warming is a sham, and of course this little diddy from their platform:
"DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice,
environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social,
political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly
benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should,
as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are
protected for all citizens."
I actually am not registered to vote yet, but I am considering doing so. I'll most likely vote republican, since 99% of the democrats now in days are socialists. Then again, so a lot of republicans, so I'll have to look at the candidates more closely. I would vote libertarian, but They never win. No green party for me, as global warming is a sham, and of course this little diddy from their platform:
Democrats aren't socialist. We'd be better off if they were. They're actually center-right in present day.
Global warming is not a sham. I really don't see how you can ignore science, but k.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We sang: "I don't know where we go from here"
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
I actually am not registered to vote yet, but I am considering doing so. I'll most likely vote republican, since 99% of the democrats now in days are socialists. Then again, so a lot of republicans, so I'll have to look at the candidates more closely. I would vote libertarian, but They never win. No green party for me, as global warming is a sham, and of course this little diddy from their platform:
Democrats aren't socialist. We'd be better off if they were. They're actually center-right in present day.
Global warming is not a sham. I really don't see how you can ignore science, but k.
I'm not ignoring Science. I've read documents from scientists from both sides of the argument, and I've come to the conclusion its a sham. It was only a few decades ago that some scientists believed that we'd be in the next Ice age by now. Look out your window, I bet its not snowing at the moment. Just because someone with a PH.D Writes it, doesn't mean it's always true. Also, its a stretch to call democrats right of center, and yes, I do believe most are socialists. They call for the redistribution of wealth in one way or another. In my vision of America, everyone pays the same amount in taxes. There are no tax credits, or tax breaks. No progressive income tax set income class by income class. Everyone pays the same percent yearly, I don't give a **** if they are a bum or a millionaire.
I actually am not registered to vote yet, but I am considering doing so. I'll most likely vote republican, since 99% of the democrats now in days are socialists. Then again, so a lot of republicans, so I'll have to look at the candidates more closely. I would vote libertarian, but They never win. No green party for me, as global warming is a sham, and of course this little diddy from their platform:
Democrats aren't socialist. We'd be better off if they were. They're actually center-right in present day.
Global warming is not a sham. I really don't see how you can ignore science, but k.
I'm not ignoring Science. I've read documents from scientists from both sides of the argument, and I've come to the conclusion its a sham. It was only a few decades ago that some scientists believed that we'd be in the next Ice age by now. Look out your window, I bet its not snowing at the moment. Just because someone with a PH.D Writes it, doesn't mean it's always true. Also, its a stretch to call democrats right of center, and yes, I do believe most are socialists. They call for the redistribution of wealth in one way or another. In my vision of America, everyone pays the same amount in taxes. There are no tax credits, or tax breaks. No progressive income tax set income class by income class. Everyone pays the same percent yearly, I don't give a **** if they are a bum or a millionaire.
The Democrats do not support redistribution of wealth, unfortunately. They would have already enacted it when they had a super majority.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We sang: "I don't know where we go from here"
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
The Democrats do not support redistribution of wealth, unfortunately. They would have already enacted it when they had a super majority.
It's been enacted for decades. Its not called the progressive income tax for no reason. Under FDR, the top tax rate was 79%, and by 1945, it was 91%. How would you like it if the IRS made you give them 91% of your income?
The Democrats do not support redistribution of wealth, unfortunately. They would have already enacted it when they had a super majority.
It's been enacted for decades. Its not called the progressive income tax for no reason. Under FDR, the top tax rate was 79%, and by 1945, it was 91%. How would you like it if the IRS made you give them 91% of your income?
I'm poor, they wouldn't. If I was making a million, that would leave me with 90,000 a year, almost double what I'm making now. I'd be happy with that.
They're not taxing the rich and corporations nearly enough, actually. Corporate welfare also needs to be done away with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We sang: "I don't know where we go from here"
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
The Democrats do not support redistribution of wealth, unfortunately. They would have already enacted it when they had a super majority.
It's been enacted for decades. Its not called the progressive income tax for no reason. Under FDR, the top tax rate was 79%, and by 1945, it was 91%. How would you like it if the IRS made you give them 91% of your income?
I'm poor, they wouldn't. If I was making a million, that would leave me with 90,000 a year, almost double what I'm making now. I'd be happy with that.
They're not taxing the rich and corporations nearly enough, actually. Corporate welfare also needs to be done away with.
Fixed that for you. I'm broke too, but I don't want anybody else's money. I don't think those more successful than me should be punished for it either. It's not evil corporations or some bourgeois ****s fault I'm broke. It's mine. I'll choose my level of success in life, and nobody will redistribute the wealth I accumulate. I can guarantee you that.
Whell, seeing as how you guys are mostly non-voters, and haven't decided on a political party yet, let me at least get you all started.
I strongly urge all of you to be "independent." I'm an independent, and proud of it. If you agree with every republican view, go republican. Likewise for democrat. The chances are HIGHLY unlikely that you will agree 100% with any political party. Once you declare democrat or republican, you automatically become a statistic.
I feel as though statistics ruin elections. Obviously people should be allowed to campaign for candidates, but surveying, and polling creates an un-bias leverage. A few of you have posted that you don't want to vote for certain parties, because they are behind in the polls. If there were no polls, how would you know if they are behind or not? I feel as though primary vote counts should be kept secret, and polls should be done away with, due to the fact that if it were to happen, people would be more inclined to vote for who they favor, instead of who is in the lead/a lesser of the two evils leading the polls.
I'm strongly against the way our elections operate.
The electoral college was a more simple way of counting votes that was developed a long ass time ago. We have computers now. Is there honestly a need for the electoral college?
I'm sticking to my constitute despite the fact that he is behind. I agree with his points, feel he is the most qualified and he has the most experience. Just because he is labeled an "independent" people say "BAHH! He can't win, ergo I won't pay attention to what he says and certainly won't waste my vote on him" I feel as though this attitude is downright ignorant and un-American. I live with myself a lot easier knowing that I'm backing the guy who I feel is best suited for the job, and not just the lesser of two evils. I'm not voting out of spite for the Democrats, and I'm not casting an ignorant vote.
I beg you all. DO NOT DECLARE A POLITICAL PARTY! The pendulum trend in America that swings back and fourth from democrat to republican needs to land in the middle, or it will be the same thing day in and day out.
Now you might be thinking "Hey, he sounds just like them! Trying to drag me into HIS political party." Maybe so, but at least I'm not telling you to vote for. I just want everyone to vote for who they believe in, instead of who people tell them to vote for.
Odiedodi is right. If you fail, it's likely your fault. You can pull yourself out of a hole. You do need assistance sometimes, yes, but that really doesn't require help from the government in most occasions. In the times where you DO, I'm glad to give my money to somebody who needs it to get back on their feet. From there, they should walk on their own, not leaning against me and other people for support.
Back on topic, do you think that the housekeeper 'scandal' for Meg Whitman is an actual scandal? I don't. She did absolutely nothing wrong, and I'm trying to see the point that the lawyer is trying to make.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Tell me this, when in the world did virtual posts gain the ability to crap?" -Monork2 on ROBLOX.com
The problem is, in capitalism, the poor must stay poor. We cannot exist without the janitors, the cashiers, the food employees. It's all fine and well to say that you should pull yourself up, but you can't have everyone doing that. Society would collapse without the poor.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We sang: "I don't know where we go from here"
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
I am against the re-distribution of wealth. I think its unfair, and un-American. "All men are created equal." Having to pay more then someone just because you make more money then them is not equal. I'm well aware that some people need help, and I'm willing to give them help. Re-distribution of wealth has nothing to do with that. Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is wrong. I don't care how you put it. Robin Hood glorified it by stealing from rich criminals, and oppressors. The fact of the matter is, many rich people are law abiding citizens. I just feel as though it isn't fare to penalize someone for hard work.
The rich generally tend to create jobs. They take the money they have earned, invest and re-invest. If we were to hike up the taxes for the rich, there would be far less incentive for them to invest, due to the fact that the higher they climb in the income bracket, the more money will go to the government.
I'm also in favor of corporate welfare. The economy is in the crap tank, and we need people to take risks, start up companies, and create jobs for themselves and others.
I guess what I'm getting at is I would rather give people fishing poles instead of giving them fish.
This election season has been a doozie! Citizens nationwide feel as though Barrack Hussein Obama has been nothing more then a lame duck president who has cost us a fortune. As our country continues to spend, spend, spend, our deficit gets larger. With the downturn of the economy and jobs at an all time low, people are mad and they are not going to take it anymore!
So the pendulum is swinging full force back in the republican direction. The republicans are favored 48% over the democrats at 42%.
Currently in Massachusetts we have running for governor...
Deval Patrick: Democratic candidate; Our current governor running for re-election. Favors a sliding scale, income tax based on financial bracket. He is against lowering the Massachusetts sales tax from 6% to 3.5% Recently rejected the Massachusetts casino bill.
Charlie Baker: Republican candidate; Former cabinet member under Ronald Regan and Richard Nixon. Former CEO of Harvard Pilgrim health insurance. Favors our current income tax system, and lowering the Massachusetts sales tax from 6% to 3%
Tim Cahill: Independent Candidate; Current Massachusetts treasurer, former member of the Quincy city counsel and former Norfolk County Treasurer. Favors giving the voters what they want, and making discussions based on what the ballots say. Favors lowering the Massachusetts sales tax from 6% to 3.5% should the voters vote in favor of it. Is in favor of the Massachusetts Casino bill, and willing to sign any legislation that would create jobs for Massachusetts citizens.
All three candidates have unanimously agreed to cap state employee pensions, and increase the legal retirement age.
Personally, I'm voting for Tim Cahill. He is extremely behind in the poles, and was recently abandoned by his running mate Paul Loscocco. Losocco is now backing republican candidate Charlie Baker. I'm backing Cahill, because he has the most experience, has shown in the past that he will do what the voters vote for, and pass legislation. The other two candidates seem extremely shifty. Cahill has been breaking his ass to obtain votes, refuses to quit, and is swaying voters one vote at a time. I feel as though he won't let us down.
So forum posters, who are you voting for? Tell me about your candidate!
Anyway, I dunno who the candidates are in Alabama, and to be honest I don't give a damn.
Also voting for the Libertarian candidate for the House.
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The downfall of Democracy.
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
Yup.
If I could vote, I'd vote for something besides Democrats.
Or Republicans, for that matter.
http://www.gp.org/index.php
http://www.lp.org/
:3
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
I was speaking more about independent politicians with actual ideals.
Third parties are just as well as independents, with actual backing.
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
"DECENTRALIZATION
Centralization of wealth and power contributes to social and economic injustice,
environmental destruction, and militarization. Therefore, we support a restructuring of social,
political and economic institutions away from a system which is controlled by and mostly
benefits the powerful few, to a democratic, less bureaucratic system. Decision-making should,
as much as possible, remain at the individual and local level, while assuring that civil rights are
protected for all citizens."
YAY Redistribution of wealth! : |
Democrats aren't socialist. We'd be better off if they were. They're actually center-right in present day.
Global warming is not a sham. I really don't see how you can ignore science, but k.
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
I'm not ignoring Science. I've read documents from scientists from both sides of the argument, and I've come to the conclusion its a sham. It was only a few decades ago that some scientists believed that we'd be in the next Ice age by now. Look out your window, I bet its not snowing at the moment. Just because someone with a PH.D Writes it, doesn't mean it's always true. Also, its a stretch to call democrats right of center, and yes, I do believe most are socialists. They call for the redistribution of wealth in one way or another. In my vision of America, everyone pays the same amount in taxes. There are no tax credits, or tax breaks. No progressive income tax set income class by income class. Everyone pays the same percent yearly, I don't give a **** if they are a bum or a millionaire.
The Democrats do not support redistribution of wealth, unfortunately. They would have already enacted it when they had a super majority.
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
It's been enacted for decades. Its not called the progressive income tax for no reason. Under FDR, the top tax rate was 79%, and by 1945, it was 91%. How would you like it if the IRS made you give them 91% of your income?
I'm poor, they wouldn't. If I was making a million, that would leave me with 90,000 a year, almost double what I'm making now. I'd be happy with that.
They're not taxing the rich and corporations nearly enough, actually. Corporate welfare also needs to be done away with.
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
Fixed that for you. I'm broke too, but I don't want anybody else's money. I don't think those more successful than me should be punished for it either. It's not evil corporations or some bourgeois ****s fault I'm broke. It's mine. I'll choose my level of success in life, and nobody will redistribute the wealth I accumulate. I can guarantee you that.
I strongly urge all of you to be "independent." I'm an independent, and proud of it. If you agree with every republican view, go republican. Likewise for democrat. The chances are HIGHLY unlikely that you will agree 100% with any political party. Once you declare democrat or republican, you automatically become a statistic.
I feel as though statistics ruin elections. Obviously people should be allowed to campaign for candidates, but surveying, and polling creates an un-bias leverage. A few of you have posted that you don't want to vote for certain parties, because they are behind in the polls. If there were no polls, how would you know if they are behind or not? I feel as though primary vote counts should be kept secret, and polls should be done away with, due to the fact that if it were to happen, people would be more inclined to vote for who they favor, instead of who is in the lead/a lesser of the two evils leading the polls.
I'm strongly against the way our elections operate.
For those of you who don't know how the electoral college works, here is a wikipedia link!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_ ... _States%29
The electoral college was a more simple way of counting votes that was developed a long ass time ago. We have computers now. Is there honestly a need for the electoral college?
I'm sticking to my constitute despite the fact that he is behind. I agree with his points, feel he is the most qualified and he has the most experience. Just because he is labeled an "independent" people say "BAHH! He can't win, ergo I won't pay attention to what he says and certainly won't waste my vote on him" I feel as though this attitude is downright ignorant and un-American. I live with myself a lot easier knowing that I'm backing the guy who I feel is best suited for the job, and not just the lesser of two evils. I'm not voting out of spite for the Democrats, and I'm not casting an ignorant vote.
I beg you all. DO NOT DECLARE A POLITICAL PARTY! The pendulum trend in America that swings back and fourth from democrat to republican needs to land in the middle, or it will be the same thing day in and day out.
Now you might be thinking "Hey, he sounds just like them! Trying to drag me into HIS political party." Maybe so, but at least I'm not telling you to vote for. I just want everyone to vote for who they believe in, instead of who people tell them to vote for.
Back on topic, do you think that the housekeeper 'scandal' for Meg Whitman is an actual scandal? I don't. She did absolutely nothing wrong, and I'm trying to see the point that the lawyer is trying to make.
Raise my dragons please!!
That is the anthem, the slogan, the summary of events
The rich generally tend to create jobs. They take the money they have earned, invest and re-invest. If we were to hike up the taxes for the rich, there would be far less incentive for them to invest, due to the fact that the higher they climb in the income bracket, the more money will go to the government.
I'm also in favor of corporate welfare. The economy is in the crap tank, and we need people to take risks, start up companies, and create jobs for themselves and others.
I guess what I'm getting at is I would rather give people fishing poles instead of giving them fish.